Community Set: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity
Mechanics | Skeleton | Common Breakdown Ref | All commons for playtesting

CardName: Sea Spray Cost: U Type: Enchantment Pow/Tgh: / Rules Text: {2}{U}, remove a flood counter from target land: Tap up to two target creatures. Flavour Text: Set/Rarity: Community Set Uncommon

Sea Spray
{u}
 
 U 
Enchantment
{2}{u}, remove a flood counter from target land: Tap up to two target creatures.
Expand text
Created on 04 Sep 2011 by jmgariepy

Code:

Active?: false

History: [-]

2011-09-04 22:18:19: jmgariepy created the card Sea Spray
on 04 Sep 2011 by jmgariepy:

I originally was going to make this card for my open slot in Blue Commons Submissions, but then realized it made a better uncommon, and stayed my hand. The strange part about this card is that it is probably best employed by a deck that has no Islands in it, as an answer to flood. For that reason alone, we probably shouldn't make a common that removes flood counters. I don't want to see every color but blue get a secret 15th common that can hose Blue.

on 18 Jan 2012 by Jack V:

Yeah, I agree: removing flood counters as a cost is interesting, and colours should have some answer to flood counters, but not a common which does so repeatably.

Random thoughts:

  • I'm amused that if you're playing this as an answer to flood, you can just hold this in your hand and wait until your opponent gives you a U to play it with :) I'm not sure if it would be funnier if the cost were UU or not :)
  • Maybe some colours should have a way to sac (or bounce) their lands, so they can get rid of the flood counter but only at a cost

ETA: Maybe we can have a couple of blue commons which do so as a cost, but (possibly indirectly) don't work as anti-blue measures, or do so only very innefficiently? I like the as-a-cost idea, because it makes multiples more relevant, but you're right that they easily turn into anti-blue cards. (Or maybe that's ok, maybe people won't draft blue-hate so highly, and if they use a random blue common that's not very useful in their deck to fight flood, that's a sufficient up-side for the flood deck.)

on 18 Jan 2012 by jmgariepy:

Innefecient removal of counters as an answer (for example a 4/4 for {3}{u} that, as an additional cost, requires you to remove a flood token) isn't such a bad idea, but, you're right... it should probably wait for uncommon as well. After all, the focus is Aer vs. the 5 mono colored planes. If we featured cards at common that showcased a different fight, it could warp people's first perception of the set...

on 18 Jan 2012 by Alex:

That's a very good argument against having this at common. In fact, I think it might be better to save this kind of mechanic until the second set.

Only signed-in users are permitted to comment on this cardset. Would you like to sign in?